Category Archives: Islamism

An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life. a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law. Islamists thus demand the return of the society to Islamic values, and the return of the state to sharia law. A society governed by Islamic principles and law is seen as the true and sole answer to problems caused by the realities of modern life, including social and cultural alienation through urbanisation and migration, and political and economic exploitation.

From the first Arab-Islamic Empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire, the story of the Middle East has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams. So argues Efraim Karsh in this highly provocative book. Rejecting the conventional Western interpretation of Middle Eastern history as an offshoot of global power politics, Karsh contends that the region’s experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, and that foremost among these is Islam’s millenarian imperial tradition.

The author explores the history of Islam’s imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day.

September 11 can be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behavior or policy in the Middle East, says Karsh. The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over.

In Islamic Imperialism, Karsh poses a fundamental challenge to the way we understand the history of the Middle East and the role of Islam in that region.

Inside back cover

Efraim Karsh is professor and head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme, King’s College, University of London. He has published extensively and often served as a consultant on Middle Eastern affairs, Soviet foreign policy, and European neutrality. His books include Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 and Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography.

Last week, six Muslim men were removed from a plane in Minneapolis. They claimed to be victims of “discrimination.” Do you know the WHOLE story? If not, please read the police report and eyewitness reports from the incident before you make up your mind.

Broz, thanks for the post. Your right about the epithet “The Great Satan,” made famous by Ayatollah Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution. Satan in not an imperialist. Satan is a tempter.

Islamists are sexually puritanical, to the point that dances at churches are all the evidence needed to convict the West to hell, and sufficient justification for militant jihad. Sayyid Qutb, Islamists icon, wrote in the 1950s’ of church dances, “where people of both sexes meet, mix and touch …who even go so far as to dim the lights to facilitate the fury of the dance … (T)he dance is inflamed by the notes of a gramophone (and) the dance hall becomes a whirl of heels and thighs, arms enfold hips, lips and breasts meet, and the air is full of lust.”

Sayyid Qutb writings are one of the main references for jihadists today.

Posted by permission fromDr. Daniel Pipes. Its appearance is independent of this blog, and should not be construed to either agree or disagree with the opinions expressed on this blog, or on any other website.

The agreement’s 11th article (out of twelve) reads: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law, making it an authoritative expression of American policy.

In 2006, as voices increasingly present the “war on terror” as tantamount to a war on Islam or Muslims, it bears notice that several of the Founding Fathers publicly declared they had no enmity “against the laws, religion or tranquility” of Muslims. This antique treaty implicitly supports my argument that the United States is not fighting Islam the religion but radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology that did not even exist in 1796.

Beyond shaping relations with Muslims, the statement that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” has for 210 years been used as a proof text by those who argue that, in the words of a 1995 article by Steven Morris, “The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians.”

Joel Barlow (1754-1812), a U.S. diplomat, promised “harmony” between his country and Muslims.

But a curious story lies behind the remarkable 11th article. The official text of the signed treaty was in Arabic, not English; the English wording quoted above was provided by the famed diplomat who negotiated it, Joel Barlow (1754-1812), then the American consul-general in Algiers. The U.S. government has always treated his translation as its official text, reprinting it countless times.

There are just two problems with it.

First, as noted by David Hunter Miller (1875-1961), an expert on American treaties, “the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic.” Second, the great Dutch orientalist Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857-1936), reviewed the Arabic text in 1930, retranslated it, and found no 11th article. “The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic,” he wrote. Rather, the Arabic text at this spot reprints a grandiloquent letter from the pasha of Algiers to the pasha of Tripoli.

Snouck Hurgronje dismisses this letter as “nonsensical.” It “gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning.”

These many years later, how such a major discrepancy came to be is cloaked in obscurity and it “seemingly must remain so,” Hunter Miller wrote in 1931. “Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

But the textual anomaly does have symbolic significance. For 210 long years, the American government has bound itself to a friendly attitude toward Islam, without Muslims having signed on to reciprocate, or without their even being aware of this promise. The seeming agreement by both parties not to let any “pretext arising from religious opinions” to interrupt harmonious relations, it turns out, is a purely unilateral American commitment.

And this one-sided legacy continues to the present. The Bush administration responded to acts of unprovoked Muslim aggression not with hostility toward Islam but with offers of financial aid and attempts to build democracy in the Muslim world.

The online version of the Las Vegas Review Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/ ) recently posted an article by Muslim American journalist Aslam Abdullah, who is the director of the Islamic Society of Nevada and of the Muslim Electorates Council of America, and is also editor of two Muslim American papers: the Muslim Observer weekly and the Minaret monthly. In his article, titled “Kill Us Too, We Are Also Americans,” he harshly denounces the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, saying that Al-Mujahir and his supporters rejoice in killing innocent people and that they bring nothing but disaster upon Islam. Abdullah adds that, if Al-Muhajir wishes to harm Americans, he might as well target Muslim-Americans, since they, no less than their fellow citizens, regard the U.S. as their home and uphold its values.

FROM OUR READERS: Kill us, too: We are also Americans

Radical Muslims not worthy of the religion

By ASLAM ABDULLAH

Special to the Review-Journal

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks “using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require.”

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill. …[Read more]

The official (PA) daily newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, has for years promoted anti-American hatred, often through the publication of hateful political cartoons. This tactic has continued in recent weeks with a new spate of anti-American cartoons.

In the first cartoon below, the US is portrayed as a menacing threat to the Arab world. America and Al Qaeda have sent the Grim Reaper, who is shown surrounded by piles of skulls in Iraq yet already searching for his next Arab victims. The second shows the US’s attempt to dominate the entire world, as Uncle Sam sits happily on top of the globe. The third cartoon continues the PA’s active support of Saddam Hussein and the insurgency in Iraq. It focuses on America’s high losses in the past month by replacing the stars of the American flag with skulls, while Uncle Sam stares at the flag and cries.

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, which published these hate cartoons, is under the complete control of the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Abbas last month: “We have great admiration for you and your leadership…You have the strong support of the US and a personal commitment from President George Bush” (AP and The Jerusalem Post, October 5, 2006).

The following cartoons appeared at the end of October:

Sign on pile of skulls on TV: “Iraq.”

Grim Reaper says: “This series is brought to you by America and Al Qaeda.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, October 20, 2006]

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, October 20, 2006]

Note the skulls that replace the stars in the flag.

Text on top: “More than 100 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq this past month!”

Next time you are in Doha, capital city of Qatar, make sure you schedule your trip around the Doha International Book Fair, and glut yourself on anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-West literature until your cup-o-hate runneth over!

The Arab hate industry: Egypt continues as a center for the publication of crude anti-Semitic literature encouraging hatred for Israel, the Jewish people and the West, and in effect justifying the use of violence against them. …[Read more]

PROVO – Professor Steven Jones and Brigham Young University finalized a retirement package Friday, six weeks after the school placed the physicist on paid leave to review his statements and research about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. …

… Jones submitted a letter to the editor of the Deseret Morning News via e-mail Friday afternoon. Written two weeks ago, the letter did not mention his decision to retire and avoided any reference to BYU. In it, Jones renounced the Iraqi War, questioned the official explanations of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers and expressed concern that a future terrorist attack might be blamed on Iran or Syria to justify American aggression against those nations.

“I stand firmly against the war in Iraq and any war of aggression,” Jones wrote. “I support scientific scrutiny of the events of 9/11/2001, a day which will live in infamy.”

BYU stripped Jones of two classes he was teaching when the university placed him on paid leave on Sept. 7 to review a paper he wrote about the physics behind the collapse of three towers on Sept. 11. He published a paper saying experiments he conducted at BYU on material from ground zero and other evidence led him to believe the towers fell because pre-set explosives were detonated throughout the buildings after the hijacked jets struck the Twin Towers.

BYU planned to review the paper to see if it met scientific standards of peer review. The university also expected to look at statements made by Jones at conferences and in the media and determine if Jones was appropriately distancing himself from BYU when he spoke about his explosives theory. …[Read more]

PROVO, Utah, Oct. 21 — A Brigham Young University physics professor who suggested that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives has resigned, six weeks after the school placed him on leave. …[Read more]

By Colonel Buzz Kriesel, US Army (Retired). Buzz Kriesel is a retired U.S. Army Colonel who commanded Special Forces, Military Intelligence and Psychological Operations units.

(AINA) — America recently commemorated the 2973 Americans who died in the infernos of September 11, 2001. The attack on 9/11 was a transformational moment in our history. Like Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or the assassination of President Kennedy on November 23, 1963, all Americans know exactly where they were when they learned that planes were crashing into the World Trade Center in New York.

For me, it wasn’t a surprise that we were attacked. Much of my military career was spent studying the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam. However, like most military planners and intelligence officers, I was astounded by the success of the operation. It is not the type of operation you pull off with amateurs. In that regard, 9/11 will go down in history as one of the most meticulously planned, superbly executed terrorist attacks ever conducted.

The attack on 9/11 was not only an operational success; it was and remains one of the most devastating psychological operations ever conducted. The attacks struck fear into the heart of America and gave encouragement to Islamist militant groups throughout the world. The attacks were also viewed by millions of Muslims as Allah’s will. They continue to believe that it was Allah’s punishment for the West’s flagrant desecration of Islam and the sin manifest in our culture and way of life.

Since 9/11, I have spoken widely on the challenge we face from the global jihad and the rising threat from Islamic militants. I am often asked, “Are we winning the Global War on Terror?” I try to explain that we are not fighting a “Global War on Terrorism”. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity to be defeated. In other words, you can’t win a war against terrorism.

The question that should be asked is, “Can we stop the global mass movement that is now rising within Islam?” To answer that question, we must understand ourselves as well as the enemy we are fighting. Political Correctness Will Kill Us

It is becoming clear that we can no longer tolerate the politically correct behavior and speech codes that prevent us from honestly examining and openly discussing the threat posed by militant Islam. Political correctness blinds us to the fact that the Muslim religion is being used to support a murderous ideology that seeks to impose an Islamic utopia on the world. It also explains our reluctance to use all available means to confront the threat from Islam. Simply stated, there is a pacifist strain within the West that argues for understanding, tolerance, and “dialogue” with the terrorists. By now, it should be clear that there can be no dialogue with these men.

The best example is that of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker who was assassinated in Amsterdam in 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch Moroccan who was born and educated in Holland. Bouyeri killed Van Gogh because he made a movie (“Submission”) that Bouyeri and Muslims considered insulting to Islam. Bouyeri shot Van Gogh in broad daylight while onlookers watched in horror. As Bouyeri bent to cut his throat, Van Gogh’s pleaded, “Can’t we talk about this?”

That was a wake-up call for Holland. There were numerous other warnings that a sinister Islamic threat was gaining strength around the world. These warnings include the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the tragic night club bombing in Bali, the beheading of Christians by Abu Sayyef Islamists in the Philippines, the embassy bombings in Africa, or the train bombings in Spain and London in 2004 and 2005, and the now routine Islamic violence directed against Jews and Christians throughout the world.

The pattern is generally the same–shock, disbelief, and then the question, why? “Why would anyone commit such a horrific atrocities against innocent men and women who have no chance to defend themselves.”

Immediately after 9/11, there were few answers other than those from radically anti-American professors who said that we deserved the attack. There were other so-called experts and apologists for Islam who sought to explain that we had offended the Muslim World which was causing it to lash out against us. President Bush and others sought to reassure us that we were attacked by a small number of fanatics who had high-jacked a peaceful and tolerant religion. None of these answers is satisfactory.

The main reason America was attacked on 9/11 is that it is the leader of the Western world and stands in the way of the world dominion Allah has ordained for Islam. The Jihadists firmly believed that they were fulfilling the demands of their religion and the instruction given to them by their Prophet Mohammad and as recorded in their holy book, the Qur’an. The attacks also had the support of millions of Muslims and were widely celebrated throughout the Muslim world. To believe otherwise makes us extremely vulnerable to the mass movement that is again rising within Islam.

Our Postmodern World.

Let me try to explain why Americans do not fully comprehend or understand the challenge posed by renascent Islam. Our lack of comprehension derives from the postmodern, morally relative world that we live in. American society has been subjected to this culturally destructive project since the late 1960s.

The Postmodern Project seeks to completely deconstruct Western man and Western Culture. It aims to discredit the United States and the West by portraying them as imperial, colonialist cultures that oppress and exploit the pristine innocence of more primitive societies and cultures, most especially the victimized people of the Middle East. The project is profoundly anti-Western and within our borders, intensely anti-American.

Postmodernism is the Trojan Horse of moral relativism and political correctness in all its forms. It is managed by speech codes on campuses and by self-imposed media restrictions that forbid rational and open discussion of Islam’s negative characteristics. If you openly draw attention to the violence that seems to be coming from Islam, you are immediately called racist or more recently, “Islamophobic”.

You will seldom hear truly open discussion or examination of the underlying precepts within Islam that support and encourage Muslim Jihadists and suicide bombers. Such discussion or criticism is off-limits even though criticism or ridicule of Christianity or Judaism is fully approved and common on our campuses, in our main stream media and in the Public Square.

We have also been “conditioned” by our media, by academia, and by Islamic front organizations such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), The Muslim American Society, to accept the PC myth of Islamic peace and tolerance. Fortunately, the West is waking up. By word and deed, Islam has proven that it is neither tolerant nor is it peaceful! The widespread Islamist attacks and Muslim extremism throughout the world has created an emerging realization that this widespread violence is coming from within Islam.

Jihad as a Mass Movement

A key part of this awakening must be the realization that we are in the early stages of a renascent mass movement within Islam. This modern jihad (Holy War) represents a renewed effort to achieve Islam’s historic mission of submitting the world to the will of Allah. The West and all non-Islamic countries have faced this threat since Islam began its conquest of the world in the 7th Century. The modern jihad is merely a continuation of this violent legacy. Only now, it is using terrorism as a psychological weapon to counter the overwhelming military and economic might of the West. The near term global objective of the modern jihad is to regenerate a mass movement within Islam that supports the historic Muslim goal of establishing Dar al-Islam (the house of submission) where all Muslim nations and eventually the world is ruled by shari’a or Islamic law and government.

The modern jihad was formally declared on February 23, 1998 in a fatwa or ruling declared by Osama bin Laden and the World Islamic Front. The fatwa has been generally ignored in American media and within academia. It shouldn’t be ignored because it calls for the destruction of all Americans whether soldier or innocent civilian. The fatwa declares: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim…”

Confronting the Jihad

Our struggle with the Islamic jihad is complicated by the difficulty of estimating the number of Muslims who directly or indirectly support the militants. In any case, we are dealing with some very large numbers. The population of Muslims across the globe is estimated at between 1.2 and 1.5 billion. Many analysts estimate that only 10% of Muslims actually support the jihad and the militants. If that is the case, there are over 100 million Muslims potentially available for Holy War. The number of warriors available for jihad will be even larger if the Jihadists are successful in generating a fully realized mass movement.

Where does the jihad now stand? Some argue that we are at the beginning of WW III citing 9/11 as the opening salvo of that war. I would argue that the war actually began in 1979 when Iranian militants seized our embassy in Teheran and held Americans hostage for 444 days. We also chose to ignore the numerous probing attacks we were receiving before 9/11.

I also agree with those who say that 9/11 was our modern Pearl Harbor. At 8:46 am on that terrible September morning, we lost 3000 men and women to the enemy. This closely approximates our casualties at Pearl Harbor at the beginning of WW II.

Dunkirk in WW II is another analogy that applies to our present struggle with the Islamists. An argument has been made that a modern Dunkirk in the Middle East will occur if the terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq force a premature withdrawal of our forces before stability is restored. If that were to happen, it is likely that another Holocaust will result as Jews in Israel are slaughtered in a genocidal Muslim rage and Christians are cleansed from the region. Many will object to this scenario as too alarmist. I would argue that an Islamic Holocaust is already taking place in many areas of the world where Christians and other religions are suffering from Muslim persecution and violence. It is occurring in:

Iraq, where Assyrian churches are bombed, priests are murdered, Christian girls are kidnapped and raped

Egypt where Coptic Christians are under a genocidal assault by the Ikwahan al Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood)

The Indonesian Molluccas where Muslim “Komando Jihad” troops are trying to cleanse the islands from all that is Christian. They have killed thousands of Christians in the past decade and have driven an estimated 500,000 people from their homes

East Timor where thousands of Catholics were killed by Muslims in the 1970s. By November 1976, the death toll is estimated at well over 100,000

The Sudan where the murder of Christians living under shari’a government is routine. An unrestricted genocide is underway in Darfur Province where Muslim Janjaweed fighters have slaughtered over 100,000 innocent tribals. The number killed grows daily as the world watches

Nigeria, and Kenya where Muslims are murdering Christians trying to resist the establishment of shari’a (Islamic religious law and government) in those countries

Pakistan where it is becoming increasingly murderous for Christians as radical Islamists kill missionaries, priests and nuns on a routine basis

Noted scholar Samuel P. Huntington has described this conflict with Islam, as a “Clash of Civilizations”. Huntington’s 1996 book should be required reading if for no other reason than his prediction that conflict between the West and Islam is only “the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in the modern world”. Huntington concluded that the Muslim religion is the most menacing force on the international scene and is a long term threat to world stability. There are many who disagree with Huntington and argue that his thesis is exaggerated and too alarmist. However, terrorist trend lines clearly show that Huntington is correct in his pessimistic assessment of the threat we are facing. As we see in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world, the virulent hatred and intolerance rising out of Islam is fueling the fanaticism associated with all violent mass movements. There are moderate Muslims who still maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. They argue that the extremists do not represent the majority of Muslims who only want to live in peace. However, it is increasingly difficult for moderates and apologists for Islam to deny that modern Islamic extremism represents a dark side of the religion that lends itself to exploitation by the leaders of the jihad. This deeply ingrained violence within Islam directly supports the modern jihad and finds expression in al Qaeda as the “base” for all modern Islamist movements.

Changing the Heart and Mind of Islam

It is incorrect to think of our struggle as a battle to win the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world. Actually, our struggle with the Islamists involves changing the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world.

The West can begin by bringing diplomatic pressure and international sanctions to bear on Muslim countries that do not reject the hatred and violence directed against Jews, Christians and other religions. Political and religious leaders in the West must demand that Muslims demonstrate that Islam is a tolerant religion as proven by deeds as well as words. Muslims should be required to forcefully reject the anti-Semitism and extremism common in mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) around the world. The United States should join with Great Britain and other European countries that now immediately deport Muslim clerics when they preach hatred and violent jihad.

Secondly, the West should demand reciprocity for religious freedom and expression in all Muslim lands. All Muslims must be asked to “do onto others” by demonstrating that their religion can accept pluralism and the democratic norms now observed by the civilized world. The West should no longer tolerate a one-way religious street. Saudi Arabia, for example, should be required to allow churches and synagogues to be built. We should also demand that Christians be allowed to openly worship in Mecca or anywhere else within the Muslim world. Economic and political sanctions should result if religious freedom and expression is not allowed elsewhere within the borders of Islam.

Thirdly, the West must find a way to force a reformation within Islam. There are moderate Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, who want to reform and move their religion out of the 12th Century. They must be protected and supported when they speak out against their violent co-religionists. They should be encouraged to begin the “independent reasoning” (ijtihad) necessary for a reformation within the Muslim religion. A reformation occurred within the Christian faith in the 16th Century. Something similar must occur within Islam in the 21st Century or the violence will continue. Finally, democracy must prevail in Iraq even though many argue that trying to establish democracy in Iraq is a distraction that takes our eye off the real enemy. I do not believe this to be the case. The attempt to establish a functioning democracy in Iraq is the “canary in the mine shaft”. If Democracy dies in Iraq, the world will be condemned to a very bleak, sharia driven future.

It is obvious that the Islamists are putting us to the test in Iraq. Their aim is not to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. Rather, they are trying to generate a guerrilla war in Iraq similar to that experienced by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. As with the USSR, the ultimate goal of the Jihadists is to force a humiliating withdrawal by US and Coalition forces. We simply must not let that happen and withdraw in the face of adversity as we did in Vietnam, Beirut and Mogadishu. To do so will only confirm the predictions of Osama bin Laden and his Islamist warriors.

The relentless suicide bombings in Baghdad and the recent bombings in Kabul coupled with the apparently senseless attacks on mosques, innocent civilians, and infrastructure indicates that the Islamists fully realize what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan.. They understand the power of democracy to free men’s minds. A functioning democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is their greatest fear. And be assured that all of Islam is closely watching our actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The psychological impact of a forced withdrawal on the millions of Muslims watching this struggle would be incalculable.

Once again, America is bearing the burden of saving the world from an oppression that seeks to destroy liberal democracy as a way of life. Our nation was the deciding factor in the struggle with Japanese Imperialism, German National Socialism and Communism. It is again bearing the burden of leading the free world against an enemy who will not be appeased. The outcome will be determined by the will of the American people. The future of Western civilization is in their hands.

Framing Islamism as politics instead of religion would go far in defeating the aegis of political correctness which protects and deters an honest, hard look at this nightmarish religio-political movement.

Treating Islamism like other political-ism which threatened the world – e.g. such as fascism, communisms, Marxism – is a step in the right direction and is long overdue.

According to Kepel … political Islam originated in Egypt in the 1920s when the Muslim Brotherhood resolved to go beyond observing sharia (Islamic law) to establish a full-fledged Islamic state. Their slogan was “The Quran is our constitution.” (Read more)

At long last, the debate on Islamism as politics, not Islam as religion, is out in the open. Two weeks ago, Jack Straw might have felt he was taking a risk when publishing his now notorious article on the Muslim veil. However, he was pushing at an open door. From across the political spectrum there is now common consent that the old multicultural emperor, before whom generation of politicians have made obeisance, is now a pitiful, naked sight. …[Read more]

Emerson:There are essentially two types of jihadists. The hard-core military jihadists who are prepared to carry out terrorist attacks in the

United States. They have already been indoctrinated. All they await is a charismatic leader or the external order that gives them a green light. Secondly, there is the far greater number of what I call “cultural jihadists.”The cultural jihadists are not willing to carry out attacks themselves, but rather, they provide the moral support for the military jihad­ists.

They are the ones that believe thatIsraelor theUScarried out 9-11. …[Read more]

How example:Steven Jones is not a Mormon, but an undercover Muslism sent to infect American’s with a lethal disinformation virus called StevenJonesitist: a form of 9/11 post traumatic stress disorder which causes severe denial of facts and a mental delusionary disease attacking the part of the brain used for reason and logic, causing irrational and illogical governmental paranoia and terror-denial. Demand the truth about Steven Jones!

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, The Middle East Media Research Institute has monitored, translated, and recorded what was said in the Arab and Iranian press about that day. Prominent journalists, members of academia, leading religious figures, and even Arab government officials helped shape conspiracies about what “really” happened.

The carefully documented collection is now available as a PDF and includes a compilation of articles and editorials from the mainstream Arabic and Persian language press, as well as transcripts from television programs.

A documentary film about the Arab and Iranian reaction to 9-11 incorporates footage from various TV and satellite stations in the Middle East. It was made with Interface Media Group and narrated by acclaimed actor Ron Silver.

The final report of the Princeton Project was published on September 27, 2006. It is an important work and adds substantially to the National Security debate. On a cursory first pass, there is much I do agree with in this final report. However, there are some things that for certain these brainiacs remain clueless on. In is my intent to peruse this final report and post my responses to it from time to time.

The most comprehensive effort to date has been the Princeton Project, a two-year exercise in bipartisan policy-making based at the university of that name, drawing on a 400-strong brains trust made up of some of the West’s brightest strategic thinkers. The result is a report published last week entitled “Forging a world of liberty under law–US national security in the 21st century”, which lays out a roadmap. It is worth examining not just because of its provenance–its honorary godparents were George Shultz Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, and Tony Lake, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser–but because of the interest it is exciting in Congress and in the policy boiler-rooms run by some of the potential candidates for 2008.

One of the first recommendations is for Washington to dump the war on terror” as its central organising principle and instead “function like a Swiss army knife able to deploy different tools for different situations on a moment’s notice”. The US was caught looking the other way on September 11, 2001, preoccupied with China. But the same could happen again if the country maintains its single-minded focus on terrorism, the authors argue. The next big threats might not be another al-Qaida attack. It could be a Chinese threat to Taiwan, or an avian flu pandemic, or oil at $100 a barrel.

Meanwhile the Princeon authors urge the administration to drop the phrase “Islamo-fascism” to describe al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, because it is grossly offensive to the Muslim world and therefore fans Osama bin Laden’s dream of provoking a clash of civilisations. Like most experts outside the administration, the writers of this report argue that the route out of oblivion in the Middle East runs, not through Baghdad, but through Jerusalem and it two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict. “For the moment, we have lost our traditional status as a fair and honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” the report argues. It suggests a united front with the European Union to apply pressure on both sides to make compromises.

More controversial perhaps, are the prescription for reform of the United Nations, an institution it declares essentially broken. It not only advocates the enlargement of the UN Security Council with the inclusion of emerging 21st-century powers such as Brazil and India as permanent members along with representatives of the Muslim world and Africa; it also suggests the abolition of the veto over direct UN action in response to a crisis like Darfur. Thus individual permanent members with vested interests would not be able to block UN intervention against genocide and mass killing.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, one of the Project’s co-directors, argues: “If the US announced it believed in the democratisation of the UN, the end of veto on direct action, it would go a long way to restoring our credibility.” If UN reform fails in the face of resistance from the existing permanent members of the council, the report proposes the formation of a “Concert of Democracies” to act as an alternative fount of authority for multilateral global policing.

This event — hosted jointly by the New America Foundation and the Princeton Project on National Security — was a major day-long conference on Capitol Hill probing panels of experts on the challenges of the 21st Century with regards to developing a grand strategy, maintaining economic security, and revamping institutional rules for new threats.

The conference was punctuated by remarks on national security from Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and closed by a discussion on democracy building with Honorary Co-Chair of the Princeton Project on National Security and former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake.

To read the final report “Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, U.S. National Security In The 21st Century” by Prof. G. John Ikenberry and Woodrow Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter, click here.

Video of this conference is available at right, while the day’s agenda is detailed below.

TheMediaLine.org speaks with Jonathan Paris, an Islamic movement analysts and former Middle East Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues Imams are the root cause of jihadism, not socioeconomic issue. His focus of late is radical Islam in Europe. He finds it is “more the pull of these Imams, that are pulling young Muslim men into radicalism than the push of socioeconomic issue. Let me give you three reasons, … “

The Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs has announced the upcoming launch of a website aimed at fighting extremism and to reform individuals with extremist views. The website, which will have sections in Arabic and in English, is aimed at Muslim audiences worldwide. It will include forums for debating controversial issues like takfir (accusing other Muslims of heresy) and al-walaa wal-baraa. [1]

The site is to be operated by the Al-Sakinah Campaign, an independent Saudi initiative supported by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. The campaign initiates dialogue with extremists on the Internet with the aim of preventing the spread of extremist views. [2]

In an interview with the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, the public relations director of the Al-Sakinah Campaign, Khaled Al-Mushawwah, provided details on the planned site.

“The [Al-Sakinah] Campaign is about to step up [its activities] with the launching of a very big site that the campaign is currently working on. We have [already] contracted a large firm to construct it in the best possible manner. The primary goal of the site is to display the efforts of the Al-Sakinah Campaign in fighting extremist and deviant ideology, to correct [aberrant] views, and to explain the position of shari’a on questions like terrorist activity and takfir. The site also aims to propagate the correct ideology and to publish materials related to the campaign’s activities, e.g. fatwas by senior ‘ulama and sheikhs as well as studies on [relevant] issues. The site aims to take part in proper [Islamic] da’wa and to spread the correct views regarding Islam…” …[Read more]

Although we have made significant progress in securing the homeland and fighting terrorism over­seas, complacency about the challenge of Islamist terrorism will prove to be deadly, potentially mak­ing the horrors of 9/11 seem minor in comparison. …

… While the foiled U.K. plot was a clear win in the war on terrorism, probably preventing the death of as many-or more than-the number who tragi­cally died on 9/11, equally dangerous to our safety and security at home and abroad is our own com­placency about the safety and security of this great nation against the Islamist terrorist threat.

If Captain Moroni was the leader of the US, UK, or Israel, what message would he send to Jihadists, e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, insurgents in Iraq, al-Qaida, etc?

Alma 44: 6 Yea, and this is not all; I command you by all the desires which ye have for life, that ye deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us.

7 And now, if ye do not this, behold, ye are in our hands, and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you, and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct; and then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.

Alma 44 Moroni refuse to accept the enemies arms which they hand over unless they covenant to stop fighting; i.e., he rejects temporary peace, slays those who refuse to disarm, and one of his soldiers scalps the enemies leader instilling fear in the enemy.

Alma 46 Moroni slays those who refuse to enter the covenant of freedom. Gee, you are either with us or against us, or better yet, dead! Where have I heard that before?

Alma 51 Moroni compels the pacifistic “dissenters to defend their country or put them to death” and in fact slays many of them.

Alma 51 Moroni casts remaining dissenters “into prison, for there was no time for their trails at this period”. Nephite Gitmo?

Alma 54 Moroni demands enemies stop their “murderous attacks”, calls them “a child of hell” and is not open to prisoners exchanged except on his own terms, which are highly waited in favor of the Nephites.

Alma 55 Moroni refuse to exchange prisoners, because he is angry for he knew their enemies did not have a just cause and he did not want to grant them greater strength.

Alma 60 Moroni uses executive power to “use all their power and means to deliver themselves from their enemies” and even threatens the government to supply his armies or he will turn attack and slay them! Bush hasn’t gone that far yet, but Bush has everything in common with how Moroni managed the affairs of the Nephite war.

Alma 62 Moroni kills the king-men because they refuse to defend their county. He has zero tolerance for dissension and pacifisms and dividers and non-supporters so much so he kills them!

Imagine if the US, UK, and Israel actually used the Book of Mormon as the standard of moral and immoral management of a The War on Terror, how much they would be hated by the UN and the World in general. God’s way has never been very popular in the World.

“They are terrorists, yes, but more directly they are Jihadists,” the White House hopeful told ABC News. “That has broad implications.”

Romney is spot on.

Romney’s determination to avoid referring to America’s enemies solely by the tactics that they use is earning praise from some foreign policy specialists. “I think it could change the entire center of the conversation,” said Mary Habeck, a professor of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

The conversation must change for unless we name the disease we can’t protect ourselves from it let alone cure it.

Romney acknowledges that there has been a “big debate” in academic circles about the meaning of jihad, with some people believing that a spiritual jihad was never intended in the world of Islam to be militaristic. He says, however, that “there is no question” about what jihad means to the Islamic militants fighting the United States. Nor does Romney think there is any question that Osama bin Laden would like the world to see him as a potential caliph.

There is no debate in Islamic circles of what jihad means, only disinformation from the likes of CAIR and gullible people who buy into their propaganda. Muslims understand full well jihad has two forms, lesser jihad (military struggle/Holy War) and greater (spiritual struggle). “Ye shall know them by their fruits,” Jesus said. Fruits are works or evidence or observable behavior and the results which flow from them. Who can doubt that Islamists use their belief in jihad to justify their murderous deeds?

Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an “armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.” Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a “far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction” with a “very 8th century view of the world.” Based on his reading of books such as “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us,” by Steven Emerson, and “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America” by Walid Phares, Romney believes the Jihadists want to “retake the ancient Muslim lands and unify umma, or the world of Islam, under a caliphate.”

One outgrowth of Romney’s focus on Jihadism is his support for increased surveillance in the United States. In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation last year, Romney posed a series of rhetorical questions about domestic intelligence gathering. “We have 120 colleges and universities in Massachusetts, roughly,” he said. “How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who come from terror sponsored states? Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them? How about people who are in settings — mosques, for instance — that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what’s going on? Are we seeing who’s coming in, who’s coming out?”

Like Bush, Romney understands the enemy and is not afraid to clearly define and state who and what the enemy is. That is the leadership we have in Bush, and the leadership we need in the next President. One of the many reasons Bush and Romney have my support.

Moreover, their numbers are not small. It is estimated by scholars that some 10%-15% Muslims support militant Islamists goals that use jihad as the method to enforce its ideology. That translates to 100,000,000 – 150,000,000 who are or favor and support Islamism/Militant Islam! Add to that the general consensus that 50% of Muslims are sympathetic to Islamists and you have 600,000,000 – 750,000,000 Muslims that side with or are sympathetic to the imperialistic, militant Islamic ideology. That is something to remember when you hear the common canard, “these radicals represent only a small, tiny faction of Muslims.”

Posted by permission from the editors of www.latterdaylight.com. Its appearance is independent of this blog, and should not be construed to either agree or disagree with the opinions expressed on this blog, or on any other website.

The book of Helaman practically starts out with Kishkumen’s murder of the chief judge Pahoran (Helaman 1:9). Kishkumen’s fellow conspirators “entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker, that they would tell no man that Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran” (Helaman 1:11). Only later, when Kishkumen tries to kill Helaman, does it come to light that a secret combination led by one Gadianton was conspiring “to murder, and to rob, and to gain power” over the people (Helaman 2:4-5, 8). Though this is the first reported incident of a secret combination among the Nephites, Mormon makes the point that, in the end, “this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi” (Helaman 2:13).

Helaman tells us that secret combinations originate with “that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit–yea, that same being who did plot with Cain, that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known to the world . . . . who led on the people who came from that tower into this land; who spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land, until he dragged the people down to an entire destruction, and to an everlasting hell. Yea, that same being who put it into the heart of Gadianton to still carry on the works of darkness, and of secret murder” (Helaman 6:26-29).

When abridging the history of the Jaredites,describes how the destruction of that mighty nation came about through those secret combinations and compares it to the subsequent destruction of the Nephites. The Book of Mormon thus not only provides a twofold witness but also a prophetic pattern of how secret combinations lead to the entire destruction of a nation of God’s people, even the most blessed and perhaps most powerful nation in the world.

In fact,intersperses his abridgment with pointed warnings to the Gentiles who will live in the last days, whom he has seen in vision (Mormon 8:34-35). He says of secret combinations, “They have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi. And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain–and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be. Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you . . . For it cometh to pass that whosoever buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries” (Ether 8:21-25).

Earlier,had predicted that the Book of Mormon (including its sealed portion) would come forth “in a day when the blood of saints shall cry unto the Lord, because of secret combinations and the works of darkness” (Mormon 8:27). Nephi similarly saw that secret combinations would exist in this land in the last days. He says, “The Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes . . . And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice. And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil” (2 Nephi 26:20-22). Finally, a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith declares that the time would come when those preaching in the east would “teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming upon the earth, and of secret combinations” (D&C 42:64).

Questions we may ask ourselves could include, Are we reaching that point now? Is the increasing terrorist threat to destroy America and other fredom-loving nations the beginning of what Book of Mormon prophets saw would happen to us? Are we approaching such a state of wickedness so as to be bringing these things upon ourselves? To determine answers to these question, we might compare the Pattern of Secret Combinations the Book of Mormon provides (as follows) with what is happening today:

Posted by permission fromDr. Daniel Pipes. Its appearance is independent of this blog, and should not be construed to either agree or disagree with the opinions expressed on this blog, or on any other website.

The debate over profiling airline passengers revived after the thwarted Islamist plot to bomb 10 airplanes in London on Aug. 10. The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services – with the notable exception of Israel’s – search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers.

Adopting techniques used by the U.S. Customs Service and by Israeli airport security, SPOT is “the antidote to racial profiling,” TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis, said. It discerns, she said, “extremely high levels of stress, fear and deception” through “behavioral pattern recognition.” SPOT agents observe passengers moving about the airport, with TSA agents looking for such physical symptoms as sweating, rigid posture, and clenched fists. A screener then engages “selectees” in conversation and asks unexpected questions, looking at body language for signs of unnatural responses. Most selectees are immediately released, but about one-fifth are interviewed by the police.

After the London plot, the British authorities instituted a crash-course in SPOT, learning directly from their American counterparts.

Building on this approach, an Israeli machine, called Cogito, uses algorithms, artificial-intelligence software, and polygraph principles to discern passengers with “hostile intent.” In trial runs with control groups, the machine incorrectly fingered 8% of innocent travelers as potential threats and let 15% of the role-acting terrorists slip through.

While methods that target the whole population have general value – SPOT did discover passengers with forged visas, fake IDs, stolen airline tickets, and various forms of contraband – its utility for counterterrorism is dubious. Terrorists trained to answer questions convincingly, avoid sweating, and control stress should easily be able to evade the system.

The airport disruptions following the thwarted London plot prompted much discussion about the need to focus on the source of Islamist terrorism and to profile Muslims. In the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, “a return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats.”

This argument is gaining momentum. A recent poll found that 55% of Britons support passenger profiling that takes into account “background or appearance,” with only 29% against. Lord Stevens, the former chief of Scotland Yard, has endorsed focusing on young Muslim men. The Guardian reports that “some EU countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, want to … introduce explicit checks on Muslim travelers.”

One politician in Wisconsin and two in New York State came out in favor of similar profiling. A Fox News anchor, Bill O’Reilly, has suggested that Muslim passengers ages 16 to 45 “all should be spoken with.” Mike Gallagher, one of the most popular American radio talk-show hosts, has said he wants “a Muslim-only [passenger] line” at airports. In a column for the Evening Bulletin, Robert Sandler proposed putting “Muslims on one plane and put the rest of us on a different one.”

Three conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, because Islamist terrorists are all Muslims, there does need to be a focus on Muslims. Second, such notions as “Muslim-only lines” at airports are infeasible; rather, intelligence must drive efforts to root out Muslims with an Islamist agenda.

Third, the chances of Muslim-focused profiling being widely implemented remain negligible. As the same Wall Street Journal editorial notes, “the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn’t preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security.”

Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my “education by murder” hypothesis – that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets – I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.

Deeyah is a Muslim singer born in Norway who is speaking out against oppression of Women in Muslim culture. Her womens rights advocacy takes on issues from the burka to honor killings. This brave Women deserves our support.

Freemuse hands the microphone to Deeyah – a Muslim pop singer and an activist with a serious message. She has placed herself in the crossfire of today’s most controversial, religious issues

I have always experienced prejudice and discrimination for being a woman, for being Muslim and for not being white. I think these issues cannot be solved without reform from within my own community first. I hope that I can address and articulate some of these issues both through my music as well as through other forms of expression – such as writing, short films, and documentaries as well as through general activism within the community. I hope to see Muslim women claiming their rightful place within society without any fears of judgment, discrimination or violence.

I come from a culture of fear and silence. Everyone within my own community knows about the abuse and mistreatment of women, but no one says anything. …[Read more]

This is not a clash of civilizations as it is commonly referred to. Rather, it’s a clash among the members of one civilization-Islamists vs. moderate Muslims (by moderate I mean anti-Islamist Muslims). Muslims are the first victims of the deadly jihad of the Islamists, e.g., Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, to name a few.

It is estimated by scholars that some 10%-15% Muslims support militant Islamists goals that use jihad as the method to enforce its ideology. That translates to 100,000,000 – 150,000,000 Muslims! Add to that the general consensus that 50% of Muslims are sympathetic to Islamists and you have 600,000,000 – 750,000,000 Muslims that side with or are sympathetic to the imperialistic, militant Islamic ideology. That is something to remember when you hear the common canard, “these radicals represent only a small, tiny faction of Muslims.”

What is more…

Just as the deviant Western ideologies of fascism and communism challenged and then had to be expelled from the West, so it is with militant Islam and the Muslim world. The battle for the soul of Islam will undoubtedly last many years and take many lives, and it likely to be the greatest ideological battle of the post-Cold War era. (Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America)

The West cannot fix the problems germinating in the Muslim world. The West are outsiders, and though the West can contain and deter as like it did with communism, it cannot cure what ails Islam.

That is where moderate Muslims come in; they are the only hope the world has of eradicate this toxic, deadly, virulent version of Islam. That is to say, the vaccine can only come from the Islamic world. Which is one reason I love the work of Dr. Jasser, a Muslim who gets it, and has taken action to step up and counter-jihad the Islamists.

Across the Muslim world today if anything is self-evident it is that the Ummah is badly in need of reform. On this point it can be stated with confidence that all Muslims are agreed. Poverty and injustice characterize the face of Muslim lands from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Pollution and corruption are the order of the day in societies where the gulf between then and the developed countries of the world has never been wider. Politics in the Muslim world are all too often the politics of desperation, economics the economics of deprivation, and culture the culture of despair.

Crisis in the Muslim Mind examines the intellectual and historical roots of the malaise that has overspread the Ummah and threatens to efface its identity. First published in Arabic in 1991, this important work (in an abridged English translation) is designed to familiarize educated and concerned Muslims with the nature of the crisis confronting them, and to suggest the steps necessary to overcome it.

Islamists fear any real ideological battle within Islam against Islamism and its clerics. To that end, they seek the removal of American and Western involvement from Muslim majority countries. Americanism is founded upon an anti-theocratic ideology that is a global ideological threat to Islamism. “Jeffersonian” Muslims who depart from Islamism are similarly the greatest threat to the influence of Islamists within the Muslim community.

Disengage Islamism from Muslims and Americanism will flourish among Muslims. With the deconstruction of Islamism (the ends), Islamist terror (the means) has no cause.

Muslim activists should find it commonplace to address the central ideological issue of this war -Islamism vs. Islam vs. anti-Islamism. Islamist moderation, vis-a-vis anti-terrorism and anti-autocracy, should not dismiss the remaining overriding Islamist philosophy. This philosophy is what needs to be understood.

The issue is not one of patriotism. Islamists can be intensely patriotic while having a differing vision for America. It is the ideology of political Islam that needs to be engaged. The following questions may begin to help opinion leaders discern an Islamist from an anti-Islamist: Do you believe in the strict separation of religion and politics? Do you support the development of religious (Islamic) political parties and movements? Should the imam’s “mimbar” (pulpit) be the place for the advocacy of domestic and foreign policy opinions? Should clerics be politicians or legislators?

Also: Would you prefer (if Muslims were a majority) to see legislatures argue interpretation of scripture and religious law over secular non-theological argumentation? Do you believe in a movement at any time to return a global Caliphate into existence? Where do you stand in regards to the stated global goals of the Muslim Brotherhood or the Wahhabi Movement? Is the American system of government and the Constitution inferior to the basis used for an “Islamic” state? What is the role in local and global society of the Muslim “ummah” (community)? Of the mosque? Do you believe individuals who leave Islam should be a legal concern of society? In the hereafter, by your theology, do you believe that God will only judge individuals or will He collectively judge entire communities overriding the individual?

Moderate Islamists are not an ideological threat to the radicals of al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah because they generally seek similar “Islamic” governance, albeit a more moderated, non-violent, even democratic playing field in the end. Moderate Islamists will usually also avoid identifying radical Islamists by name as the enemy.

We are five years behind and only just beginning to delve into the intellectual debate we should already be having with the Muslim world domestically and abroad. This debate needs to be at the forefront of our mass media and our “public diplomacy programs.”

Our public diplomacy leaders must no longer avoid these central questions when meeting with Muslims all over the world. Engagement involves real dialogue and debate where ideas conflict, not superficial photo-ops and sporadic ineffectual comments. Such superficial discourse actually makes the work of anti-Islamist Muslims much more difficult, for it publicly mainstreams Islamist ideology.

President Reagan did not defeat communism by creating photo-ops and a few verbal exchanges with non-Soviet communist nations during the height of the Cold War. Our leaders need to emphasize the ideological chasm between Islamism and Americanism and begin to methodically deconstruct Islamism. Our officials should also find and engage Muslims who are on the same wavelength against political Islam.

In the meantime, the United Arab Emirates just announced the provision of a very disturbing endowment to the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of reportedly upwards of $50 million. Not only is this unprecedented foreign interference, but these monies are also unlikely to be used to deconstruct the ideological basis for Islamism, Wahhabism or the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah or other enemies of the United States. They will rather be used to continue the focus on apologetics, non-Muslim “education” and political empowerment (Islamism) with very little attention to internal renewal (ijtihad), anti-terror work and the ideological incompatibilities between Islamism and Americanism.

All civil human beings and their organizations condemn terrorist acts. The real question is what separates Islamists from “Americanists”? In order to fight an ideological battle against the Islamist enemy, we must not only seek to understand them, but we must make sure that we understand ourselves. If we remain unclear about America’s ideology, then we will never understand what drives the ends of our Islamist enemies.

Our forefathers understood what was needed to extricate the oppressive influence of theocrats in England. Muslims have yet to articulate this understanding about Islamists. We must quickly embrace the openness and pluralism of our American religious heritage.

At our nation’s 230th birthday this July, we can no longer afford to dismiss the Islamist threat. Just as Islamism is a threat to the essence of the America we love, it is also a threat to the essence of my personal faith of Islam which I love. Many pious Muslims can engage in this debate to defeat Islamism. Defeat Islamism and its political ideology, and we have achieved a major victory for our nation’s security.

So far the ideological battle against political Islam has proven to be a fight few Muslims want to participate in. It has taken five years since September 11 for conventional wisdom to even begin to attempt to understand “moderate” Muslims let alone engage their ideology.

Far more important than a debate over who or what defines a moderate is our need in the United States to focus discussions upon the ideology of Islamism and political Islam. If radical Islamist terrorism is a means to an end, we should be pressing American Muslim leaders about where they stand regarding al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah.

Islamism, as I see it, is an overriding philosophy of Muslims who believe in a society guided by a system of government founded upon clerical interpretations of religious law as derived from their own interpretation of the Koran and Sunnah. Argumentation within Islamist governments and parties is based upon clerical interpretations of God’s law, not upon a reasoned deduction of effectiveness of human law. No matter how moderate Islamists present themselves, they will always hold on tightly to the notion that a majority Muslim state must be identified as an “Islamic state” with clerical guidance of their society’s proximity to the Muslim path.

Islamism is clearly in direct conflict with Americanism. Yet, an Islam which is anti-Islamist is not. Americanism as Islamists see it is defined by our Constitution and our legal precedents as a system based in legislative liberty for all faiths – true pluralism. Americanism uses a language of legislative debate not derived from religious precedent or clerical interpretation of one faith, but rather from the reasoned precedent of our secular courts and legislatures. Until this great chasm of thought between Islamists and American ideology is made clear, we are actually facilitating the spread of Islamism among American Muslims.

Make no mistake. There are many Muslims who do understand that anti-theocratic societies like the United States are preferable for the free practice of their own private faith and that of all others. In fact, many Muslims are inherently anti-Islamist by virtue of being pious Muslims demanding to be free of coercion. That is why many of our families immigrated to the United States. But virtually no efforts are underway to find these Muslims, who are our greatest untapped resource since September 11.

Islam, as a personal faith, and its inherent spirituality, worship, moral code and practices can and should be looked upon as entirely separate from all that is political Islam. This is the profound challenge of anti-Islamist Muslims of this generation. While this separation is admittedly hard to find, its existence is essential to our victory in this ideological battle.

Muslim ideological moderation is not achieved by a declaration of nonviolence. It is not demonstrated by a belief in elections and representative democracy. The radical Islamists simply ride along with moderate Islamists toward the same arena. They repackage themselves as moderates while still residing within an Islamist construct.

For example, Europe’s radical, pretend moderate, Imam Yusef al-Qaradawi, the international spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Grand Islamic Scholar of Qatar, has recently been pushing for a “wasatiya” (middle way) movement, often preaching to his followers to moderate and tolerate. Yet, he continues to have the blood of American soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq on his hands, with his endorsement of the religious legitimacy of suicide bombing in Iraq. He moderates his language for European audiences and reverts back to his fundamentalism for his Al Jazeera audiences. His fundamentalist stances are misogynistic, anti-Semitic, anti-Western, pro-Islamist and anti-freedom.

In the current American discourse, we should be curious to learn whether Muslims agree with leaders like him and why. Unless my fellow Muslims are willing to take on the likes of al-Qaradawi ideologically, they will continue to facilitate Islamism and its associated threat to American security.

When we fought the ideological battle against communism during the Cold War, was there a moderate Communist ideology? The public intellectual debate was clear that Americanism and communism were entirely incompatible. The Soviet goal for global domination was an imminent threat to our security. Similarly, the Chinese, North Vietnamese, North Koreans and Cubans, to name a few, had central conflicts with American ideology. Are we as aware of the threat posed by “moderate” Islamists regardless of their denunciation of militancy? Those who know American Muslims will tell you that the violent jihadists are a small minority of the world’s Muslim population and hard to find in our local communities. This militant minority, including members of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others, certainly needs to be found and reckoned with swiftly and forcefully on the battlefield. However, the jihadists use barbaric methods to achieve change toward a theocratic political end – political Islam.

Political Islam, on the contrary, has great support within the Muslim population. It should be engaged relentlessly in our public arena. Only anti-Islamist Muslims can change that tide. But, for now, our private and public-sector thought leaders should first wake up and force the debate.

Islamism is manifested today by any Islamic militants which revolt against regimes in power throughout the Muslim world and exacerbate political conflicts everywhere.

Their jihad, which I know to be an unholy war, is aimed at establishing a global Islamic state based solely on strict interpretation of the Koran (sharia). The political ideology of Islamism is bent on destroying any state, government or people which is not based on their utopian view of Islamic political power and control.

Islam, for the Brothers, was a complete and total system, and there was no need to go looking for European [or American] values as a basis for social order. Everything was made clear in the Koran, whose moral principles, the Brothers claimed, were universal. This doctrine was shared by the entire Islamist movement, whatever their other views. All agreed that the solution to the political problems facing Muslims lay in the setting up of an Islamic state that would implement the law of the sacred texts of Islam-the sharia-as the caliph had done in the past.

One reason I post so frequently about militant Islam is because I believe it to be the secret combination Book of Mormon prophets warned us about.

D&C 88: 78-79 78) Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; 79) Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms-

Posted by permission from AIFD; its appearance is independent of this blog, and should not be construed to either agree or disagree with the opinions expressed on this blog, or on any other website.

It is almost five years since September 11, one year since the July 7 attacks in Britain and just months after the arrests of alleged members of a Toronto terrorist cell. But the intellectual machinery of the United States has not legitimately engaged the Muslim American community and its leadership in an ideological debate about Islamism.

Stories about Muslims and Islam are now ubiquitous in the mainstream media. Yet rarely is there any substantive discussion with American Muslims about the ideology of Islamism or its prevalence. Is it limited to the activists? Is it the money trail? Or is it the faith? These questions and others that engage American Muslims in declaring or denouncing Islamist ideology seem to generally be off-limits for the media and for our elected officials. As they dance around this central cognitive engagement of our global war, the consequences to our nation’s security are immeasurable.

Many frontline reporters seem to actually have little understanding of the conflict between Islamism and Islam. There is a deep contradiction between the Islamist ideology of theocracy and our Americanism. Avoiding this, we forget who we are. The touchstone of Americanism that Islamists fear the most is our constitutional system, which protects our individual spiritual liberty through a complete separation of religion and state.

While the vast majority of Muslims do not support terrorism as a means of political change, the burning question is where Muslim leaders and their constituencies stand regarding the ideology of Islamism. Moreover, is there a difference between Islam and Islamism? If pious Muslims can be anti-Islamist, shouldn’t public discourse highlight this potent ideological weapon against the political ends of our enemies?

There are plenty of news and human-interest stories about Muslims and Islam that discuss the so-called “moderate” Muslim American identity. But what is the exact measure of this moderation? The concept of moderation can be superimposed upon any ideological construct. How long is it going to take for conventional wisdom to come to terms with the fact that moderation within Islamism is in no way moderation with regards to Americanism? Until this understanding is commonplace, anti-Islamist American Muslims are going to be unable to force the hand of their fellow Muslims in the ideological conflict within Islam against the Islamist ends.

Why? Anti-Islamists are a minority among activist American Muslims. Internally, we are usually ignored or dismissed by the majority of our activist co-religionists when trying to engage them in debate regarding the dangers and toxicity of Islamism upon Islam. No matter how pious, anti-Islamists are often demonized as irreligious. All the while we try to argue that, to the contrary, there is no closer relationship a Muslim can have with God than one entirely free from government and clerical coercion.

On June 18, the New York Times ran a story by Laura Goodstein, “U.S. Clerics seek a Middle Ground,” which highlighted the “moderate” work of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and his colleague, Imam Zaid Shakir. The bulk of this typical story discussed platitudes regarding the personal struggles of these American Muslim leaders and positively anticipated their development of a moderate Muslim seminary. However, nowhere did the New York Times delve into a genuine critical analysis of whether there was a central conflict in the ideology of the Zaytuna Institute, the school mentioned in the New York Times piece, and that of America. Yet, the piece ended with this alarming quotation from Mr. Shakir: “He still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, not by violent means, but by persuasion.” The imam further stated, “Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” he said. “I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community.”

Not only is this a blatant endorsement of Islamism (theocracy) over Americanism (anti-theocracy), but this imam labels anti-Islamist Muslims dishonest. The radical Islamists are rabidly anti-American from their fear of pluralistic liberty. They are too insecure to give Muslims or any citizens the opportunity to be free and to choose to sin or not. Can mainstream American thought afford to be naive and uncritical about this central theme of Islamist movements? Radical or moderate, regardless of the packaging, the goal of Islamists is to create a Muslim theocracy. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League responded with clarity in his June 23 letter to the New York Times: “Religion flourishes in America because we have no imposed religion, as the founding fathers designed. Imam Zaid Shakir’s hope for an America ruled by Islamic law is fundamentally un-American. Our hope is that he is an aberration and that moderate Muslim voices will prevail.”

How long is it going to take for our mass media and political leaders to finally begin to turn our collective lenses upon this un-American ideology and report on the threat it poses to America even in its most subtle forms? If Muslims insist upon remaining silent about the dangers to Americanism of Islamist ideological infiltration, we must ask why. Anti-Islamist Muslims receive the brunt of attacks from radical Islamists. This is not happenstance. Conversely, attempts by so-called moderates to ‘Islamize’ America are cheered on by the radicals no matter how far these ‘moderates’ try to distance themselves from them in all their empty condemnations.

How long will it take Muslims to frontally counter Islamism (political Islam) and separate it from their Abrahamic religion of Islam? We in the Muslim community unfortunately need a little nudging before it’s too late. America’s security hangs in the balance.

Blog Stats

Blogroll

LDS Sites

About Mormons
All About Mormons offers the internet’s largest and most comprehensive source of accurate information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have over 3,000 pages of material covering LDS beliefs, practices, culture, and history.
0

Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
Brigham Young University’s Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) encourages and supports scholarly work on Latter-day Saint scriptures and on selected subjects dealing with various aspects of the ancient Middle East and Mesoamerica. I
0

Restoring the Ancient Church, Table of Contents
I (Barry Robert Bickmore) have endeavored to make this book exactly the kind of book I would like to have read when I first became interested in comparing Mormonism to early Christianity.
0

Official LDS Church Links

Church History Resources
Read about Pioneers That Crossed the Plains, View Current and Past Exhibits, Learn about the Presidents of the Church
0

Free Book of Mormon
Another Testament of Jesus Christ is a companion volume of scripture to the Holy Bible and contains the account of the Savior’s appearance in ancient America following His Resurrection.
0

Other Resources
BeSmart.com (Education), Church Employment, Heber Valley Camp, Institutes of Religion, LDS Philanthropies, Meetinghouse Locator, Mission & Service Opportunities, Museum of Church History & Art, Order Church Materials, Places to Visit, Utah North Area Chur
0

Priesthood and Auxiliaries
Resources for Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders, Messages from Auxiliary Presidencies, Military Relations.
0

Provident Living
Resources for Spiritual and Temporal Welfare, Calculate Food Storage, Find Employment, Get Help from LDS Family Services
0